03-22-2017, 07:16 AM
(03-21-2017, 10:54 PM)JoeKW Wrote:(03-21-2017, 09:18 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I didn’t see any of it, but I like that little quotation from the judge. I’m a bit confused about one thing however — how is our system not the first instance of what Metrolinx is building? That is, don’t they have tracks — ours? I thought our vehicles were essentially identical to the ones that will be used in Toronto, and I actually was under the impression that our first vehicle was essentially the pilot vehicle for the whole order.
Also, how is Bombardier not very late and therefore in violation? Or is the dispute mostly over the impact of the lateness, which I agree is very little since there are no tracks in Toronto on which the vehicles could be run?
Metrolinx doesn't have any tracks, Waterloo does and the two have very little to do with each other.
Our vehicles are part of Metrolinx’ order. I agree the construction of the respective systems is unconnected, but as to the vehicle order, they are intimately linked. Also, don’t forget that our system is opening late because of Bombardier’s delays. So why isn’t Metrolinx arguing that Bombardier’s pilot vehicle should have been in Waterloo months and months ago (nowhere to drive until recently, of course, but there seems to be lots of non-driving work to do first)?
Also does anybody know how different the signalling is on the different systems? To me it seems obvious that the Toronto system and our system, not to mention the Mississauga and Hamilton systems, should use identical signalling systems. Loaning one of our vehicles to Hamilton should be a matter of making an entry in Hamilton’s vehicle database and dropping the vehicle onto their tracks. One day these systems will likely all interlink (well, maybe not ours, but even that is a possibility), and it would be a shame if the interfaces between them had to contend with multiple signalling systems for no good reason.